Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bulliac

Fallout from Mason case on Kopczak signing

99 posts in this topic

Kopcak signing for the Giants had been dealt with

Looks like its been opened up again. It certainly needs looking into as they have now said in court he signed in August. Bradford in there press release are saying both Thewlis and Kopcak told a RFL investigation in October that he wasn't signed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kopcak signing for the Giants had been dealt with

This won't be about him signing for Davey's mob, but about the behaviour of the blithering idiots that Davey employs in their dealings with the RFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that Davey realises he is employing some idiots in the management of the club, heads need to roll IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely if a company goes into administration and is bought by new owners and a new company formed then teh contracts are not valid and employees have to negotiate a new contract with the new owners. Or am I been stupid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Really?

Kopczack was apparently approached in August 2012 when his Bulls contract still had over 12mths to run. According to the rules below they could not approach him until May 1st 2013 unless they had the written consent of the Bulls. Not only are these the rules, but there was also a side agreement that all SL clubs would respect the Bulls and their players in our hour of need.

 

 

 

Doing my best to set aside my Huddersfield hat and trying to look at this from the point of view of someone with a mortgage to pay and a family to keep, Kopczak's employers entered administration in June.   He was very wise, at that point, to try and find a new job.  It's exactly what I would have done and to hell with the rules.  Keeping your family fed and warm comes first.

 

How sympathetic would his bank have been if he'd have claimed that he couldn't pay his mortgage because the company he worked for had gone #### up, but due to some daft quirk of the industry he's not allowed to find a new job for months?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's basically the crux isn't it

Yes his contract had 12 months to run but his company that held his contract didn't.

Like you I'd have gone job hunting at that point and no mistake - as I'm sure would anyone else

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely if a company goes into administration and is bought by new owners and a new company formed then teh contracts are not valid and employees have to negotiate a new contract with the new owners. Or am I been stupid?

 

Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employees)

 

You get moved across under the terms of your old contract if you want to be.   It's an EU thing that protects employees from having their pay and conditions slashed when a company is taken over.   If it wasn't there, then you can reduce your wage bill by closing the company, and then immediately reopening it and re-employing people on lower wages.

 

I would imagine it's on the Tory hit list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as for Keith Mason, if he's been treated badly he deserves every penny he gets.  From the media reports it seems the club stiffed him good and proper, so my view is good luck to the bloke and I hope he enjoys the payout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope he chokes on it

Maybe if he'd put in a decent performance in his last 6 months I'd have sympathy for him but before his sacking he was stealing a wage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Really?

Kopczack was apparently approached in August 2012 when his Bulls contract still had over 12mths to run. According to the rules below they could not approach him until May 1st 2013 unless they had the written consent of the Bulls. Not only are these the rules, but there was also a side agreement that all SL clubs would respect the Bulls and their players in our hour of need.

It seems to me, unless there's some fancy caveat in the appendix, that this is both a clear breach of the rules as set out, and dishonest with regard to the side agreement with all the other clubs.

>>>>>>>

APPROACHES TO/BY PLAYERS

C1:3:3(a) A Club or Licensed Agent or other person acting on a Club's behalf shall not approach any Fulltime Contracted Player directly or indirectly (which shall include statements made to the media) until 1st May prior to the date upon which the Player's contract is due to expire without receiving the prior written consent of the Club to whom the Player is contracted and such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Where such consent is withheld the Club wishing to make the approach may appeal to the RFL who shall be the final arbitrator. Both Clubs shall have the opportunity to make submissions to the RFL in the timescale set by the RFL. From 1st May prior to the expiry of his current contract any Club shall be entitled to enter into a contract with such Player subject to the compensation rules set out in these Operational Rules.

PLAYERS

Operational Rules – Section C1 - Players – Issue 11 – January 2013

( B) A Fulltime Contracted Player or anyone acting on his behalf shall not be entitled to approach another Club (the "Contacted Club") until 1st May prior to the expiry of his current contract and the Contacted Club shall not respond in any way whether directly or indirectly (which shall include statements made to the media) without first receiving the consent of such Player's Club and such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Where such consent is withheld the Player wishing to make the approach may appeal to the RFL who shall be the final arbitrator. Both Club and the Player shall have the opportunity to make submissions to the RFL in the timescale set by the RFL. From 1st May prior to the expiry of his current contract a Player shall be entitled to enter into a contract with a Club subject to the compensation rules set out in these Operational Rules.

>>>>>>>ignore smiley as it's defaulting out of the RFL text)

 

I wouldn't be happy with this if I was a player.    Personally, I wouldn't sign any contract that stopped me talking to potential employers whenever I liked. 

 

I'd be a bit surprised if this one stood up if a player wanted to challenge it, but I'm no employment lawyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under the circumstances he didn't have a job & IIRC wasn't being paid

Certainly he wasn't working under the contract conditions he agreed to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope he chokes on it

Maybe if he'd put in a decent performance in his last 6 months I'd have sympathy for him but before his sacking he was stealing a wage

 

I think he was underperforming, but the club should have handled it properly.

 

The upshot seems to be that the club is (probably) insured against the majority of the loss, it won't count on the salary cap after all, Keith Mason walks away from a job he obviously disliked with his mortgage paid and the club get rid of someone they no longer wished to employ.   A bit messy, but not the end of the world and actually, it more or less all comes good at the end.

 

As for Kopczak, I'll stick with my original point.    The Bulls were collapsing around him, he needed the security of a new job and went and got one.  He has a young family to feed and needs a steady and reliable wage.

 

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/9836878.Kopczak_still_believes_after_Bradford_Bulls_are_hit_for_six/

 

 

What Kopczak certainly did not see coming was the financial meltdown which has left the Bulls fighting for their very existence.

“It’s been unbelievable really and we’ve been kept in the dark a lot of the time,” he said.

“My wife has been really supportive while I’ve been out injured and we’ve just been waiting really, that’s all we can do.

“It’s just about making sure that you get paid so that you can pay the bills.

That’s been the main worry, to make sure I can put food on the table. I’ve got a young family and there is uncertainty.

“Something might happen by the end of this week, it might not, but hopefully there will be a positive development.

 

No doubt in my mind that Kopczak did the right thing.   All the rest is piffle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under the circumstances he didn't have a job & IIRC wasn't being paid

Certainly he wasn't working under the contract conditions he agreed to

 

In the world of procurement you can argue, generally succesfully, that persistent non-payment is a material breach of contract.  If he wasn't being paid, that might well have cancelled the contract and left him a free agent to talk to whoever he wanted to.   As I've said though, I know nothing of employment law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having been in that situation where the company I worked for was going under and I wasn't being paid regularly or knew if I'd get paid again - I didn't hang around to see how it turned out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having been in that situation where the company I worked for was going under and I wasn't being paid regularly or knew if I'd get paid again - I didn't hang around to see how it turned out

At that point in time all the First Squad were being paid and their salaries guaranteed by the RFL by making up any shortfall the Administrator had, although there were a couple of times the money was delayed going in.

I think those Court revelations put Shudders in a bit of a precarious position with Sod Hall and also the Bulls would have a good case to renegotiate the fee the RFL imposed on them that Shudders paid!

Can you not hear the sound of Buck Passing, paper shredding and digital erasing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At that point in time all the First Squad were being paid and their salaries guaranteed by the RFL by making up any shortfall the Administrator had, although there were a couple of times the money was delayed going in.

I think those Court revelations put Shudders in a bit of a precarious position with Sod Hall and also the Bulls would have a good case to renegotiate the fee the RFL imposed on them that Shudders paid!

Can you not hear the sound of Buck Passing, paper shredding and digital erasing?

 

I'm not a contract lawyer, but I think in the world of procurement a company that paid late because it was in financial difficulties would be in breach of contract and a supplier could just walk away there and then.    I can't see why a person under contract to a rugby club would be any different, but I may be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will just rumble on in the same old way, The Giants haters on here ( every club has some ) will come on giving all sorts of reason why we should be hauled over the coals, We certainly got what we deserved with regards to Mason, The RFL in their infinite wisdom will decide on the Kopczak thing.

 Myself i thought that once a club went into admin contracts were void , I agree with S May that just about any player would have done what Kopczak did in ensuring he could provide for his family. All that said ,If the Giants broke the rules then they will no doubt pay a price.

 What i find amusing is Many Bulls fans (not on here) are going on as if there club have always been whiter than white. They have had a lot of help from many directions in their time of need ,Yet some of their fans can't wait to get the knife in.

 Such is the rugby league fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think he was underperforming, but the club should have handled it properly.

 

The upshot seems to be that the club is (probably) insured against the majority of the loss, it won't count on the salary cap after all, Keith Mason walks away from a job he obviously disliked with his mortgage paid and the club get rid of someone they no longer wished to employ.   A bit messy, but not the end of the world and actually, it more or less all comes good at the end.

 

As for Kopczak, I'll stick with my original point.    The Bulls were collapsing around him, he needed the security of a new job and went and got one.  He has a young family to feed and needs a steady and reliable wage.

 

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/9836878.Kopczak_still_believes_after_Bradford_Bulls_are_hit_for_six/

 

 

No doubt in my mind that Kopczak did the right thing.   All the rest is piffle.

All fair points, and all irrelevant.

1. Have the Giants illegally approached a player under the rules of governance? Yes, it seems so.

2. Have the Giants illegally approached a player under the gentlemen's side agreement? Yes, it seems so.

3. Have the Giants told an untruth to the governing body when investigated? Yes, it seems so.

4. Has the player told an untruth to the governing body when investigated? Yes, it seems so.

5. Have the Giants illeagally dismissed a player in connection with this signing? Yes.

This scenario needs to be judged by the rules and agreements as set out. Anything else is piffle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. We don't know

2. We don't know

3. We don't know

4. We don't know

5. Yes.

The Bulls got what they deserved, and a payout from the Giants that didn't need to be paid

The giants got what they deserved too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

All fair points, and all irrelevant.

1. Have the Giants illegally approached a player under the rules of governance? Yes, it seems so.

2. Have the Giants illegally approached a player under the gentlemen's side agreement? Yes, it seems so.

3. Have the Giants told an untruth to the governing body when investigated? Yes, it seems so.

4. Has the player told an untruth to the governing body when investigated? Yes, it seems so.

5. Have the Giants illeagally dismissed a player in connection with this signing? Yes.

This scenario needs to be judged by the rules and agreements as set out. Anything else is piffle.

 

 

1.  Not necessarily - the argument I'm making is that he was not under contract to the Bulls therefore any approach at any time was legal.

2.  I would have told the Bulls to get lost on this because he wasn't a Bulls player, but the answer is yes. 

3.  Not necessarily - it depends on the answer to part 1 and what the actual question asked was in the investigation.

4.  Not necessarily - it depends on the answer to part 1 and what the actual question asked was in the investigation.

5.  No, not in connection with this signing.   Sacking Mason illegally wasn't anything to do with this.

 

 

This scenario needs to judged by the rules and agreements as set out in law.  Anything else is piffle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Piffle is right

Then again, it's rare for a bulls fan to speak anything but IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well constructed posts from Steve as ever. What about the issue of a player and a club saying one thing to the RFL and another under oath though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.  Not necessarily - the argument I'm making is that he was not under contract to the Bulls therefore any approach at any time was legal.

2.  I would have told the Bulls to get lost on this because he wasn't a Bulls player, but the answer is yes. 

3.  Not necessarily - it depends on the answer to part 1 and what the actual question asked was in the investigation.

4.  Not necessarily - it depends on the answer to part 1 and what the actual question asked was in the investigation.

5.  No, not in connection with this signing.   Sacking Mason illegally wasn't anything to do with this.

 

 

This scenario needs to judged by the rules and agreements as set out in law.  Anything else is piffle.

I believe that the Bulls were in administration at the date Kopczak agreed to join Hudds. None of the players contracts had become void at that point and I don't think that late payment is enough grounds for employee contracts to become void.

Of course the law should take precedence, but there are still competition rules that need to be followed.

For what it's worth, I don't think that Bradford or the fans should be looking to pursue this (and I don't think they are). Everybody is quite right that the club received more than enough from the game as a whole last year and arguing some minor points would be churlish.

However, if I were the RFL, I would not be happy if Huddersfield has lied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Steve says, it depends what they were asked

If I were being cynical I think at the time both the RFL and the Giants knew it was hazy ground - hence the "voluntary" £20000 fee that was paid

If I were being REALLY cynical then I'd say this will be far from the first or last time such a thing has happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1.  Not necessarily - the argument I'm making is that he was not under contract to the Bulls therefore any approach at any time was legal.

2.  I would have told the Bulls to get lost on this because he wasn't a Bulls player, but the answer is yes. 

3.  Not necessarily - it depends on the answer to part 1 and what the actual question asked was in the investigation.

4.  Not necessarily - it depends on the answer to part 1 and what the actual question asked was in the investigation.

5.  No, not in connection with this signing.   Sacking Mason illegally wasn't anything to do with this.

 

 

This scenario needs to judged by the rules and agreements as set out in law.  Anything else is piffle.

I'm glad you agree. This has to be looked at against the prevailing rules and agreements as laid out. Your inital argument in an earlier post was a gushing moralistic sob story of why Kopczack and the Giants had every right to act as they wished regardless of what rules and agreements were in place.

What we know as fact is that both Kopczack and the Giants gave different evidence to the governing body and to the law courts. The evidence given under oath, and which is therefore likely to be the correct version, contradicts the evidence given to the governing body when under investigation.

It doesn't matter that it's the Giants, it could easily be the other way around.

Here is the report from the court case including the Judge's comment.

'The player also said he thought the timing of his sacking was suspect, as several props had been signed over the summer.

He claimed he had been given the push to free up space in the salary cap for the new players – an accusation his former club flatly denied.

But the judge, Mr Justice Saffman, said there was "clear evidence" the Giants wanted Mason off their books, including emails outlining lucrative transfers to coax the prop away from his team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017